North Korea Escalation


#1

Donald Trump has said North Korea will face “fire and fury like the world has never seen” in response to reports that the state has managed to miniaturise a nuclear warhead.


#2

No head of state should be making statements like that. If he carries through with the threat, those actions have the potential to cause the greatest loss of life on record. If he doesn’t carry it through, he’ll be seen as unwilling to follow through on threats, and therefore a weak leader.


#3

Could say the same for Pyongyang.

Every bit of dialogue, if possible, should be the main goal. However, this may be a situation where that will not be the case. Therefore, I would rather us take preemptive measures. We could rely on the THAAD system, should they fire a rocket, and respond then. Or we should strike a devastating blow before they even get the chance to take such action.


#4

People will hate him regardless. But those that are now saying he is leading us to war, will be the first ones to cry about how he didn’t strike first or how it is all his fault. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.


#5

All words from Trump, no action yet.


#6

“N.KOREA SAYS STRIKE ON GUAM WILL BE CARRIED OUT IN A CONSECUTIVE, SUCCESSIVE WAY ONCE LEADER KIM JONG UN GIVES ORDER -KCNA”

Trump said fire and fury if they keep threatening, and now they’ve threatened.

Game on.


#7

Fuck dialogue. Its absolutely pointless. Both Korea’s want to be unified under them, and neither would be willing to concede anything without getting that it in return. Unless we say “here, have a go at ROK” they won’t talk with us.


#8


#9

#10

The US doesn’t need to use missiles. The problem with NK is the leadership, not the people. Missiles would target the people, with little to no effect on the leadership. The leadership do not care about the people, so it is no good targeting the general population, because that will not help the cause. What they need to do, in my opinion, is deploy special forces to take out NK leaders.


#11

I agree that the leadership should be the target, but there needs to be an established plan for creating a replacement government if possible. Assassinating NK leaders and leaving the country without leadership, if the move was even successful, could have drastic negative effects on the populace in the short-to-medium term thanks to any resulting chaos or power struggle. That includes the possibility of famine if the country’s food stocks aren’t handled properly because of the chaos. Alternatively we could see problems with the NK military that would be equally damaging; or, both.


#12

And leave North Korea full of warlords with access to nuclear weapons and zero experience of normal life?

Sounds like a good way to turn it into South Sudan.

There’s millions of soldiers in North Korea who know nothing but their duty of sucking off Kim’s family.

If any invasion or overthrow was to ever happen, which is unlikely given their nuclear status, then there’s only two options. Option one is for South Korea to do a 1990 Germany and just merge and let them take care of it. Option two is to go hard and repeat MacArthur Japan (which conveniently has similar circumstances and the closest culture) instead of repeating recent mistakes of sending civilians advisers to Afghanistan and Iraq.


#13

The people live in an isolated closed off society where they’re basically brainwashed into hating foreign imperialists and loving their dear leader. Taking out the immediate leadership would lead to a massive power struggle (which the people might not even know about, as the state could suppress the news from reaching them), and many many deaths.

Anyway, a US pre-emptive strike would not be intended to target civilians, they would be targeting the DPRK’s nuclear facilities and other such facilities related to weapon firing systems. It’s crucial that those facilities are dismantled (one way or another) before the DPRK gets MAD parity with other nuclear states.


#14

Not to mention the power struggle others have already elaborated on, you do know that this stuff is seen in movies for a reason?


#15

Like others have already said, we’d target their facilities housing their arsenal. Wipe those sites out and move in afterward.

If only it were that simple.


#16

This clip from a 1999 interview has been going around. Thought it was a good take.


#17

@Josh_Waller

What do you think about the UN’s latest ruling placing more sanctions on the DPRK? I fear that this will put them in an even more tighter spot, making them believe striking is their only option.


#18

If Trump sorts NK out he will get loads of brownie points


#19

I’m not acutely aware of the details of the sanctions, but I think time has shown that sanctions are no longer effective. The regime cares very little for its own population, and is very capable of repressing them to the extent that an insurrection isn’t likely.

What’s needed is some kind of agreement with China in order to disarm the DPRK (first resort). The current situation between the DPRK and China is unclear; whilst it’s possible that China has “lost control” of them, its also possible that China is using them as a geopolitical tool in their strategy against the US. A combination of the two is probably likely, but I doubt China really wants a nuclear armed DPRK.

The other option is unilateral military action against the DPRK in order to disarm them similar to Israel and Iran. This obviously has problems insofar that China could retaliate on their behalf, but it seems unlikely that China is going to start WW3 with the US (as long as the US doesn’t go into mission creep overload and attempt regime change); and also the threat of the North shelling the shit of Seoul and the rest of the ROK. I think this risk could be reduced if, as mentioned above, the strikes were limited in simply removing the DPRK’s nuclear capabilities and the threat of the North being annihilated by “fire and fury” if they retaliated against the South.

Any military action would need to be followed up with an enforced “deal” in order to maintain peace in the Korean peninsula, don’t ask me for details on that. :stuck_out_tongue:

Ultimately it’s likely any kind of military action will result in civilian loss of life on both sides, as North Korea may figure they’ve got nothing left to lose with their nuclear capabilities removed. So I guess the question that needs to be asked is that potential loss of civilian life worth removing the risk of the North having a very real nuclear first strike capability? I personally think yes, but only once all the diplomatic options are excluded.


#20

What do you mean similar to those two?

The US never had a plan for unilateral military-led disarmament of Iran, let alone Israel.